and here's one on the theme of plasma shooter control.

hey -- what'd i miss?

I like the part where the Protestant was mocking the Catholic for their silly beliefs and practices.

Obligatory Emo Phillips joke when such distinctions are made:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.

So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!"

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

If you want to derail the thread, a discussion of the role of religion in society is always a hoot:

 

This question is strange at three levels:

 

1) Altruistic deeds can't have positive consequences for the actor? This seems like a strange definition of altruism. I think you are confusing altruism with self-sacrifice.

 

2) It misunderstands evolutionary theory, imputing a will to species survival to the fact that certain species have survived.

 

3) Even if "a will to survival" were at the core of evolutionary theory (it's not), that will would not operate at the individual level, but at the level of the species. So, helping a member of my species would be indistinguishable from helping myself.

I think you should run for Pope. You're the only one with a pure heart, and you'd look great in red shoes.

 

I think you should run for Pope. You're the only one with a pure heart, and you'd look great in red shoes.

He's got my vote!

...Oops, I'm late for the conclave........

Don't snub the shoes, they are Italian designer slippers!

 

Species don't act to "increase their reproductive odds" -- that would be a will to survival, or a will to pass on their genes. There is no overarching telos in evolutionary theory.  Maybe you didn't claim that, but hey.

 

 

I don't actually know what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like anything related to my understanding of my question or evolution.

But never mind my question -- I was confused, thinking that nuclear families are competing, but no, in my really simplistic understanding, allele pools are competing, and that is very different, and much less observable (*) to the individuals.

So never mind. I deleted my original explanation, as I don't want to confuse R2E - that would be detrimental to this population.

(* But imagine some witty allusion to expressiveness somehow bridging into the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - for the enjoyment of the sound of that phrase)